Symposium: SCOTUS hears Moncrieffe v. Holder

A single Supreme Court decision can alter the legal
landscape for decades, but immigration cases tend to fly below the radar. To
help crImmigration.com readers stay up-to-date on what’s before the Court,
today crImmigration.com launches its inaugural online symposium on Supreme
Court crImmigration cases.

 

A group of well-informed, passionate crImmigration experts
have agreed to share their unique insight of Moncrieffe v. Holder, No. 11-702, scheduled for oral arguments tomorrow
(October 10). In Moncrieffe, the
Court is expected to decide whether possession with intent to distribute
constitutes a
drug trafficking type of aggravated felony even where it’s possible that the
noncitizen was convicted of possessing such a small amount of marijuana that it
would qualify as a misdemeanor under federal law rather than as a felony.

 

To provide the most comprehensive coverage possible, the
symposium begins before oral arguments, includes coverage of the arguments that
actually occur, and extends to analyses of the Court’s decision. Today, Claudia Valenzuela, the Associate Director of Litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center in Chicago, along with Sarah Rose Weinman, an Equal Justice
Works Fellow at NIJC, and Patty Corrales, a former DHS attorney now in
private practice in Los Angeles, explain what’s at stake when the Court hears
arguments tomorrow. Tomorrow, Alina Das, the Co-Director of NYU Law School’s Immigrant Rights Clinic and a professor there, will delve into the real-world impact of the categorical approach question that’s at the heart of the case.

Later this week Mark Noferi, a professor at Brooklyn Law
School and the author of exciting articles on immigration detention and
appointed counsel in removal proceedings, and Cathy Potter, an immigration
attorney with extensive experience representing individuals facing removal due
to criminal histories, will recap Wednesday’s arguments. And whenever the Court
issues a decision, you can expect to hear from Maritza Reyes, a law professor
at Florida A&M University who has written impressively and compassionately
about the impact of crime-based removal on LPRs, as well as Ms. Valenzuela.

 

Collectively, the symposium’s contributors represent the
breadth of legal advocacy—direct representation, impact litigation, and
academic inquiry—and bring to bear the varied experiences of immigration
lawyers throughout the country. I am confident that their combined efforts will
go a long way to shed much needed insight into the rapid evolution of
crImmigration law.

Let the conversation begin:

• Maritza Reyes, Moncrieffe: Lessons in Crimmigration Law (April 30, 2013)
• Sarah Rose Weinman, Arguments are complex, but suggest hope for Moncrieffe (October 12, 2012)
• Cathy J. Potter, A categorical tilt toward underinclusive interpretation of INA may leave room for an immigration judge to exercise discretion (October 12, 2012)
• Alina Das, Truth in conviction, Moncrieffe v. Holder and the categorical approach in immigration law (October 10, 2012)
• Sarah Rose Weinman and Claudia Valenzuela, Rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s approach in Moncrieffe would promote fairness, efficiency, and uniformity (October 9, 2012)
• Patty Corrales, Moncrieffe and the categorical approach (October 9, 2012)

• 
• 
• 
•